According to lawyers from law firm Stibbe, the proposed shortening of the 30% ruling violates Dutch law. Stibbe was hired by the United Expats in the Netherlands group (UENL) to examine the legality of the plans to cut the 30% ruling from eight years to five per 2019.

A violation of Dutch law

Cutting the 30% ruling from eight years to five without a transition period is a violation of Dutch law, according to lawyers from Stibbe. Specifically, doing so contradicts the principles of predictability, proportionality and legal certainty.

In their report, the law firm also states that the absence of a transition period is in direct conflict with State Secretary of Finance Menno Snel’s policy on transitional agreements. The changes to the 30% ruling are also in conflict with the principles of due diligence and justification.

Another point which receives criticism in the law firm’s report is the fact that the government has not looked into the possible impact that losing the 30% ruling benefit prematurely will have on the 11.000 people receiving it. These people are actually dismissed as a limited number. Should the proposed cuts become law, it is not probable that it will withstand judicial scrutiny.

What’s next for the 30% ruling?

The UENL has sent the aforementioned report to the parliamentary finance committee. Currently, the plans to shorten the 30% ruling to five years have made their way to the discussion table and it is possible that the government will deal with the cuts in a less severe manner, although nothing is certain.